Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#111

Post by hellojesus »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #105
hellojesus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Businesses would have lost customers naturally and folded due to a lack of revenue. But that's not what happened in the US. In many states, the state government forbade service businesses from operating and actively revoked licenses and/or fined businesses that tri…

> Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Oh this is going to be one of those conversations. I see. No thank you.

I am not sure why you hesitate. I advocate for the atomomy of people. I assume people are rational actors.

Person A decides they have a low mortality risk from catchimg covid. They go to the gym.

Persons B, C,..., Z all decide their riak of mortality from covid os too high, and they don't go to the gym.

The gym cannot stay open unless at least 2 people subscribe. Therefore the business shuts down.

How is this unreasonable?

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#112

Post by shuntress »

hellojesus wrote: post #104
shuntress wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others First, this is an extremely toxic attitude. Second, do you really think that people living paycheck-to-paycheck in jobs that are just barely tolerable enough to keep them from quitting are "maximizing their utility curve when compared to…

> Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and preferred job functions. Yes, that is quite possible, and I believe my comment covered that possibility by constraining their poaition against the opportunity cost. In this case, the opportunity cost of working is not searching for another job. But if you can…

Reorganizing the same systems under the control the church by dissolving the state is not an appropriate way to maintain a system of self-governance.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#113

Post by shuntress »

pandaman wrote: post #106
shuntress wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not directly related to your comment but the funny thing about the "trickle down" metaphor is that it actually makes a very strong case against Reaganomics. "Water", in the metaphor, is obviously money and as we all know water (for the most part) "trickles down" from places where there is less of it to places where there is more of it. The rich get richer. The poor stay poorer. Without regular and constant ap…

It's funny because the "trickle down" metaphor has been made up by a Democrat humorist [1]. On the same note, why would you think it was made up for Republicans? 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

I did not think it was made up for Republicans but that does not stop people from using it as an argument in-favor of free markets.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#114

Post by ToucanLoucan »

hellojesus wrote: post #111
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Had the government done the proper thing of letting consumers decide for themselves if they wanted to keep going to bars or gyms, there would be no issue. Oh this is going to be one of those conversations. I see. No thank you.

I am not sure why you hesitate. I advocate for the atomomy of people. I assume people are rational actors. Person A decides they have a low mortality risk from catchimg covid. They go to the gym. Persons B, C,..., Z all decide their riak of mortality from covid os too high, and they don't go to the gym. The gym cannot stay open unless at least 2 people subscribe. Therefore the business shuts down. How is this unreaso…

Well for starters, it isn't A versus B through Z, it's more like A through H vs I through Z. And the problem is that even if I through Z do stay home, the infections, transmissions and re-infections between A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all carry with them a minor chance of a mutation in the virus itself, which can make it more threatening to more people, or transmit more effectively, what have you.

Secondly, a whole lot of the downplaying of COVID as a whole and the opposition to masks/mandates/business stoppages was decidedly not rational and was in fact deeply rooted in conservative/libertarian culture war nonsense. If you wanted to go out, without a mask, and open yourself to that risk in full understanding of it, fair enough. The thing is with the amount of disinformation it's extremely dubious how many people did that with that understanding. And, more to the point, that risk is simply not isolated to you, that actor: that risk is shared by you, your co-habitants, your neighbors if you live in an apartment or condominium, your coworkers if you worked in person, and anyone else you happened to be in contact with. And, due to the long incubation period before symptoms showed, it was entirely possible you could get infected and spend upwards of a week spreading it around before you even realized you needed to quarantine. So saying "I'm not concerned about covid" sounds fine on paper, but you're exposing numerous people through your decision to greater risk, and they should have a say in that too, don't you think?

And to be clear: I am not in the slightest opposed to giving businesses money to survive those weird circumstances, that makes complete fucking sense to me. The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#115

Post by hellojesus »

shuntress wrote: post #112
hellojesus wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and preferred job functions. Yes, that is quite possible, and I believe my comment covered that possibility by constraining their poaition against the opportunity cost. In this case, the opportunity cost of working is not searching for another job. But if you can…

Reorganizing the same systems under the control the church by dissolving the state is not an appropriate way to maintain a system of self-governance.

Not everything has to be under a chrurch. It was just the classic example.

Plus it's not the reorganization of the same systems. I propose a completely voluntary system. It is more economically efficient than thr state run system.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#116

Post by pandaman »

shuntress wrote: post #113
pandaman wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny because the "trickle down" metaphor has been made up by a Democrat humorist [1]. On the same note, why would you think it was made up for Republicans? 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

I did not think it was made up for Republicans but that does not stop people from using it as an argument in-favor of free markets.

What people? I've only seen this used mockingly.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#117

Post by hellojesus »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #114
hellojesus wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why you hesitate. I advocate for the atomomy of people. I assume people are rational actors. Person A decides they have a low mortality risk from catchimg covid. They go to the gym. Persons B, C,..., Z all decide their riak of mortality from covid os too high, and they don't go to the gym. The gym cannot stay open unless at least 2 people subscribe. Therefore the business shuts down. How is this unreaso…

Well for starters, it isn't A versus B through Z, it's more like A through H vs I through Z. And the problem is that even if I through Z do stay home, the infections, transmissions and re-infections between A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all carry with them a minor chance of a mutation in the virus itself, which can make it more threatening to more people, or transmit more effectively, what have you. Secondly, a whole lot…

> The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison.

Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Though to be fair there was extended unemployment benefits, so those would have to be considered in each person's assessment of harm.

> Well for starters,...

I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money!

Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place, and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life.

*Also, another tidbit is that banks were compensated for lending ppp loans by a percent of the total loan's value, so bigger corporations were more likely to get a ppp loan because the bank received more money for the same amount of work. Corrupt incentives by design.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#118

Post by ToucanLoucan »

hellojesus wrote: post #117
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well for starters, it isn't A versus B through Z, it's more like A through H vs I through Z. And the problem is that even if I through Z do stay home, the infections, transmissions and re-infections between A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all carry with them a minor chance of a mutation in the virus itself, which can make it more threatening to more people, or transmit more effectively, what have you. Secondly, a whole lot…

> The part that doesn't is that while business got hundreds of thousands of dollars, people got... what, $2,200? Over the course of a year and a half. Fucking peanuts by comparison. Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations. Though to be fair there was extended unemployment benefits, so those would have to be considered in each person…

> Yes, this is why I advocate for those impacted by the shelter in place orders to sue the federal government for 5A violations.

Expecting common workers to SUE THE GOVERNMENT for lost wages is patently fucking absurd.

> I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding general transmission (though unless the entirety of the world self isolated for 14 days we were guaranteed to hit endemic status). But when the government shuts things down for that line of thinking, it is doing so for the good of the public's health. And we have 5A which says they owe people money. A lot of money!

Again, this is conflating "confiscated private property" with "prevented potential revenue from being prohibited from conducting business." Even in the most charitable terms these are not the same thing for good reason.

Add to it, where does this stop? If the city shuts you down for health code violations, is that also pursuant under the fifth? If a crime is committed near your business and the police have to shut down the road, is that also? If the government fails to act on climate change and your business is flooded out in the rising oceans, how about that?

And for how long? If it's the first example that could be however long until they can inspect your remodeled/cleaned premises. If it's the second, it could be anywhere from an hour to several weeks depending what happened. If it's the second one, it might be for eternity. Are we calculating lost business revenue to your likely age of retirement then?

This whole thing is a bottomless pit of litigation and legal gray areas.

> Apart from considering folk rational, even when they fall for misimformation, I also acknowledge that the federal government had nowhere near enough funds to compensate everyone for sheltering in place,

Do you have evidence for that? Because we pumped about three trillion additional into the economy and nothing seems to have really happened.

> and therefore believe it is preferable to allow folks to make their own rosk assessments, despite knowing this outcome would lead to more loss of life.

Yeah I don't believe that at all. We curb individual liberty literally all of the time, in all sorts of ways, at all times and at a variety of scales because everyone having their own perfect bubble of autonomy leads to an utterly unmanageable society at scale. You don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, you don't have the freedom to drive on the left side of the road, you don't have the freedom to build a 200 story skyscraper on your suburban lot, etc. etc. etc.

This hyper individualistic libertarian fantasy is just that: a fantasy.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#119

Post by gruez »

gosub100 wrote: post #79
gruez wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What if in the late '70s this new virus started spreading among gay men, and doctors just shrugged and said "well we can treat the symptoms and make our best guess how to avoid it, but damned if I know what's going on..."? How long would we keep awarding academic medals, increasing professors' salaries (and of course tuition), and lauding these doctors as heroes if they never advanced the state of their art? I mean,…

I would say you're cherry picking. HIV went from death sentence to a nuisance. So again, I ask, why haven't economists made similar progress? I guess they just like winning medals and appearing elite, without actually contributing anything?

Well for one, in medicine you can run randomized trials across thousands or even millions of patients. The public don't want their economies turned into guinea pigs for economics experiments, so they have to stick with natural experiments, which greatly limits progress. A better comparison would be the public health response to covid-19. Even today we don't really know whether lockdowns were worth it or not.

>I guess they just like winning medals and appearing elite, without actually contributing anything?

Are they? some of the contributions listed here seem pretty important and non-trivial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_l...

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#120

Post by endisneigh »

shuntress wrote: post #110
endisneigh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. How much?

"enough money every month to fully cover basic food, basic shelter, and basic expenses"

The fact that you can’t put a number is why it’ll never happen, you expect people to agree with an undefined amount of money given?
Post reply on HN